Iron Man's New Villain — an Open Source Terrorist 361
An anonymous reader writes "In a recent interview on Comic Book Resources about his new continuation of the Marvel comic-book series 'Invincible Iron Man,' Matt Faction provides information about the the new series (debut will be May 7). The villain is Ezekiel Stane, son of Obadiah Stane (the villain of the new Iron Man movie opening on May 2). Whereas Obadiah was a ruthless billionaire who fought as the Iron Monger, Zeke 'rejects the strategies of his father as being the crude tactics of Attila the Hun.' Instead, he will be 'a post-national business man and kind of an open source ideological terrorist.' As the author puts it, 'Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop.' The concept has gone over well on the CBR forums."
Re:Man, and I though piracy was bad (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more (Score:5, Informative)
Iron Man was my fave character (A smooth but smart dude), but he's gone to shit in the past few years.
Thanks, Marvel.
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Informative)
-Jawohl mein Führer (with an Umlaut)
-Sieg Heil
Disclaimer: I'm not German, I'm Dutch.
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:2, Informative)
"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." - Benjamin Franklin
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:1, Informative)
Fact check on aisle 4. Fact check on aisle 4. (Score:3, Informative)
Iron Man is not a good guy (Score:2, Informative)
Remember the song "Iron Man"...
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
Serious citation needed here. You can't make such a sweeping statement (*often*?!?) without giving at least some proof. I paid quite a lot of attention to the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission [wikipedia.org], and I don't remember hearing any such thing.
That's a gross exaggeration. The average white South African was more or less indifferent. They played no part in actively oppressing blacks, but were happy to accept the advantages that the systemic oppression brought them, so long as it didn't cause too much trouble. It's hard to get people to stand up when other people's rights are being trampled, isn't it? Not a lot of Americans complained about the Trail of Tears [wikipedia.org] either.
The trouble with politics is that it's the extremists who are most likely to be politically active. Decisions are made by those who show up, and those tend to be the people with strong views. Very few Russians in 1916 were enthusiastic communists; the rest were just prepared to go along with it. And very few South Africans in 1948 were hardcore racists; but they were OK with the fact that their government was made up of scumbags and that is their guilt.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Informative)
Tony Stark is a closed source old school military industrial complex type. The new enemy is a diffuse open source agile terrorist type. Tony Stark finds that he and his closed source ways are having trouble keeping up with the open source stylings of his enemy.
P.S. It has NOTHING to do with the movie. Take off the tinfoil, this is an article about the new story arc in the comic book and is not part of a MIAA plot to take away your Linux.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Iron Man is interesting (Score:5, Informative)
The evil twin theme is very common in comic books, whether the twin is in a parallel universe, or is a pretender, or just somebody who is awfully like the hero. The quest for more complexity and realism in recent stories means there is no better candidate for evil twin than the hero himself. It's an even match, no kryptonite needed.
It's a very plausible and useful theme. What is a supervillain, but a superhero with a plan to drag the world, against its will if need be, into a better future? He starts by acting as if his undeniable superiority gives him the right to make decisions for others. In the end he finds himself using lesser people as expendable means to his ends. What I've argued is that the classic comic book hero is really not all that heroic. The villains are arguably more heroic, but only from the perspective of their severe moral short sightedness.
If you want to take a superhero on a journey from being a muscle-bound enforcer of the status quo to being real hero, the straightest path cuts right across supervillain territory.
Is Tony Stark really any different from Dr. Doom? They're both vain, armor wearing geniuses with a serious authoritarian streak. As bona-fide geniuses they have more reason than most to believe themselves qualified to decide what is in the best interest of others. However, Dr. Doom will never be a hero, because there is no end to his self-delusion of omniscience; there are no limits to what he will destroy today to build a better tomorrow.
Sacrifice is essential to heroism. A hero has to give something up for the greater good. In the DC universe, Batman is a kind of neurotic fixation of Bruce Wayne; Wayne fights crime, but in a way that precludes him having normally satisfying relationships with other people.
Clearly, the easiest way to make Tony Stark into a hero is to give him something he has to give up; you can't take away his genius, which makes taking away his money futile. So you have to give him something, namely the power and authority he not-so-secretly craves. The best way to show that Tony Stark is different from Dr. Doom in an essential way is for him to become Dr. Doom. Then turn back. And, since this is Marvel, he'll return from the trip with enough personal demons to flummox Dr. Strange.